Before we even begin to dissect what's currently happening economically (the mortgage crisis, failed banks, bailout, etc), we need to first understand the basics of money and debt.

Money equals debt. If there was no debt, then there would be no flow of money. So, the amount of money circulating within our economy is equal to the cumulative amount of debt we've accumulated, via loans, mortgages, etc.

If you listen to the financial pundits on TV, or read their analyses in print, you'll realize that they all keep talking about getting the bailout approved, so that the economy can get going, and we can all start borrowing money from banks again, whether businesses of individuals, and essentially, accumulate even more debt. They keep talking about credit and borrowing. Shouldn't they be instead preaching saving, or buying only what you can afford?

They should, but they won't, because our banking system and the flow of currency relies on our need to borrow, so that we can consume, and consume, and consume, eventually leading to conspicuous consumption, and of course astounding debt.

If we all suddenly stopped borrowing money (i.e., no credit cards, no car loans, no mortgages), and instead lived strictly within our means, there would be no new money created and we would have no economy.

We live in an economy that encourages (and even requires) us to spend, instead of save. Does that make any sense? We are essentially slaves to the banks, even the government, and there's a good reason why. As Anselm Rothschild (one of our earliest most powerful bankers) once said, “permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws.”

The ongoing financial crisis is all a sham, as far as I'm concerned. If the nation really wanted to “fix” it (sans the so-called bailout) they could. Just as if they wanted to eliminate poverty, they could. But it's not in the best interest of those few elite who are really pulling the strings behind the curtain.

Before we even begin to dissect what's currently happening economically (the mortgage crisis, failed banks, bailout, etc), we need to first understand the basics of money and debt.

Money equals debt. If there was no debt, then there would be no flow of money. So, the amount of money circulating within our economy is equal to the cumulative amount of debt we've accumulated, via loans, mortgages, etc.

If you listen to the financial pundits on TV, or read their analyses in print, you'll realize that they all keep talking about getting the bailout approved, so that the economy can get going, and we can all start borrowing money from banks again, whether businesses of individuals, and essentially, accumulate even more debt. They keep talking about credit and borrowing. Shouldn't they be instead preaching saving, or buying only what you can afford?

They should, but they won't, because our banking system and the flow of currency relies on our need to borrow, so that we can consume, and consume, and consume, eventually leading to conspicuous consumption, and of course astounding debt.

If we all suddenly stopped borrowing money (i.e., no credit cards, no car loans, no mortgages), and instead lived strictly within our means, there would be no new money created and we would have no economy.

We live in an economy that encourages (and even requires) us to spend, instead of save. Does that make any sense? We are essentially slaves to the banks, even the government, and there's a good reason why. As Anselm Rothschild (one of our earliest most powerful bankers) once said, “permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws.”

The ongoing financial crisis is all a sham, as far as I'm concerned. If the nation really wanted to “fix” it (sans the so-called bailout) they could. Just as if they wanted to eliminate poverty, they could. But it's not in the best interest of those few elite who are really pulling the strings behind the curtain.

Before we even begin to dissect what's currently happening economically (the mortgage crisis, failed banks, bailout, etc), we need to first understand the basics of money and debt.

Money equals debt. If there was no debt, then there would be no flow of money. So, the amount of money circulating within our economy is equal to the cumulative amount of debt we've accumulated, via loans, mortgages, etc.

If you listen to the financial pundits on TV, or read their analyses in print, you'll realize that they all keep talking about getting the bailout approved, so that the economy can get going, and we can all start borrowing money from banks again, whether businesses of individuals, and essentially, accumulate even more debt. They keep talking about credit and borrowing. Shouldn't they be instead preaching saving, or buying only what you can afford?

They should, but they won't, because our banking system and the flow of currency relies on our need to borrow, so that we can consume, and consume, and consume, eventually leading to conspicuous consumption, and of course astounding debt.

If we all suddenly stopped borrowing money (i.e., no credit cards, no car loans, no mortgages), and instead lived strictly within our means, there would be no new money created and we would have no economy.

We live in an economy that encourages (and even requires) us to spend, instead of save. Does that make any sense? We are essentially slaves to the banks, even the government, and there's a good reason why. As Anselm Rothschild (one of our earliest most powerful bankers) once said, “permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes the laws.”

The ongoing financial crisis is all a sham, as far as I'm concerned. If the nation really wanted to “fix” it (sans the so-called bailout) they could. Just as if they wanted to eliminate poverty, they could. But it's not in the best interest of those few elite who are really pulling the strings behind the curtain.